THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3358/2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short ‘the C.P.C’), has been filed by Judgement Debtor No.2 in E.P.No.88 of 2024, for execution of the award passed in A.C.P.No.207 of 2019 dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Krishna at Vijayawada, under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 3. The 1st respondent is the Decree Holder and the respondents 2 to 5 are the Judgement Debtor Nos.3 to 5. The 6th respondent is the garnishee. 4. The award was passed in favour of the Decree Holder in the following terms: “In exercise of powers conferred under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do hereby order that the disputant is entitled to recover the claim amount of Rs.3,97,610/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety seven thousand six hundred and ten only) jointly and severally from the opponents 1 to 5 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.3,66,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 08-08-2019 to till the date of realization and also Rs.16,926/- 2 towards cost of this dispute. The amounts paid if any after filing of the dispute shall be given credit to.” 5. The E.P. was filed for execution. As per the docket order annexed with the C.R.P dated 23.07.2024, the order was passed observing that the Judgement Debtor No.2 was absent though notice was served. There was no representation for Judgement Debtor No.2. So he was set ex parte. Pursuant to the said order, the garnishee notice was issued to attach the petitioner’s salary to the extent of 1/3rd. Challenging the order dated 28.10.2025, the present C.R.P has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was returned with the endorsement ‘no such person in this address’. 7. We have perused the said order. In the said order, it was further noted that the notice on Judgement Debtor No.2 was served. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the notice was received with such endorsement, it could not be said to have been served. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that the address mentioned, in the notice for service is the same and the correct address. Consequently, if the learned Execution Court has taken the notice as served, it cannot be said that the notice was not served. In any case, any such ground of challenge has not been taken in the present C.R.P nor the order dated 23.07.2024 is under challenge. 3 9. So far as the impugned order is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any illegality in the said order, except submitting that the order is ex parte. We are not satisfied with the submission in the order dated 23.07.2024. 10. The order of the garnishee notice issued to recover the amount under the award from the salary @ 1/3rd per month is in consonance with the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. 11. As aforesaid, we find no illegality in the order impugned. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 28.11.2025 Pab 4 314 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM C.R.P.No.3358 of 2025 DATE: 28 .11.2025 Pab